Several of the opinions here seem to be very subjective, and getting a bit heated. I would argue that judgements on whether something is better or not are very often subjective. Much of this depends on individual tastes. I would argue that no rules system will ever please all gamers because of different preferencs. That, and I would argue no rules system will ever be perfect because game designers are just as imperfect as the rest of humanity.
Terra Dave, you make an interesting point about finding out what sort of 2nd Edition experiences that the new players in Spider's group experienced. I found 3.0 to be fairly easy to transition to in my old group, which initially was skeptical about 3rd Edition. Indeed, the DM even said I was right to suggest that 3.0 was a better game. (Ironically, I left that group about a year and a half back. I don't think they converted over to 3.5 before that group finally dissolved.)
Perhaps one thing to point out is that many of the same concepts exist but the mechanics may be different. So, what might have taken a kit and weapon specialization in 2nd Edition might be better done with a few feats or even a prestige class. Also, I would argue that a lot of the "fluff" of 2nd Edition products can be imported into a 3.5 game.
Also, I have found there always will be a need for some DM adjudication as players often do the unexpected. So, I think the best way to think of any rules set is that it is a guide to a DM and players. However, it is up to a DM and players to give life to a world. To me, that is the magic of gaming: a group of players and a GM who can make the fantastic seem real and enjoyable.
